Date   

#SharedCrypto #SharedCrypto

Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Everyone,

 

Just an update on the crypto-lib.  We will be naming the project “Hyperledger Ursa,” which should come as no surprise to those who have been following the project.  This will bring about a couple of changes of which you might want to be aware:

 

1.       The rocketchat channel will be renamed to “ursa” (from “crypto-lib”).

2.       In the near future, we will have a new project list ursa@... which isn’t active yet (I think), but hopefully will be very soon!

 

If you’d like to continue following the crypto-lib stuff, please subscribe to the list when it is available and make a note of the new channel.

 

Thanks,

Hart


Re: #umbra timezone survey #umbra

Mike Lodder <mike@...>
 

I prefer weekly to start and then can adjust it after  a month or two. Most times work for me


From: labs@... <labs@...> on behalf of Robin A. Nordnes <robin.nordnes@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 3:43:30 PM
To: labs@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Labs] #ubra timezone survey
 
Hi David, 

Based in GMT timezone. 

Best Regards, 
Robin A. Nordnes


On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 22:05, Harold Heard <harold@...> wrote:
Thanks David, I am in CST (Central Standard Time) yet I am flexible.


Harold Heard, CTO & Founder
Blockqai, LLC. | (pronounced “Blok • Ki”)/Blockchain + Quantum Computing + AI

Cell: 469.629.7326
Email: harold@...
https://linkedin.com/in/haroldheard

According to the Urban Dictionary, “Ki” is the spiritual energy within all human beings. Channeling your Ki will allow you to perform normally impossible tasks.



-----Original Message-----
From: labs@... <labs@...> On Behalf Of David Huseby
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:03 PM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #ubra timezone survey

Hi Umbrageous People,

I'd like to set up a regular meeting, like every other week or monthly to discuss the state of the project, people's plans and priorities.
Will you all reply to the list with your time zone so that we can find some candidate times for a meeting?

Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...







Re: #umbra timezone survey #umbra

Geater, Jon <Jon.Geater@...>
 

Usually U.K.
 
Thanks
 
Jon
 
 





 
Jon Geater
CTO
Tel: +44 1223 703479
Mob: +44 7966 995312
@thalesesecurity

Thales eSecurity
One Station Square
Cambridge CB1 2GA
United Kingdom



www.thalesesecurity.com

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:43 PM +0000, "Robin A. Nordnes" <robin.nordnes@...> wrote:

Hi David, 
 
Based in GMT timezone. 
 
Best Regards, 
Robin A. Nordnes
 

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 22:05, Harold Heard <harold@...> wrote:
Thanks David, I am in CST (Central Standard Time) yet I am flexible.


Harold Heard, CTO & Founder
Blockqai, LLC. | (pronounced “Blok • Ki”)/Blockchain + Quantum Computing + AI

Cell: 469.629.7326
Email: harold@...
https://linkedin.com/in/haroldheard

According to the Urban Dictionary, “Ki” is the spiritual energy within all human beings. Channeling your Ki will allow you to perform normally impossible tasks.



-----Original Message-----
From: labs@... <labs@...> On Behalf Of David Huseby
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:03 PM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #ubra timezone survey

Hi Umbrageous People,

I'd like to set up a regular meeting, like every other week or monthly to discuss the state of the project, people's plans and priorities.
Will you all reply to the list with your time zone so that we can find some candidate times for a meeting?

Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...







Re: #umbra timezone survey #umbra

Robin A. Nordnes
 

Hi David, 

Based in GMT timezone. 

Best Regards, 
Robin A. Nordnes


On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 22:05, Harold Heard <harold@...> wrote:
Thanks David, I am in CST (Central Standard Time) yet I am flexible.


Harold Heard, CTO & Founder
Blockqai, LLC. | (pronounced “Blok • Ki”)/Blockchain + Quantum Computing + AI

Cell: 469.629.7326
Email: harold@...
https://linkedin.com/in/haroldheard

According to the Urban Dictionary, “Ki” is the spiritual energy within all human beings. Channeling your Ki will allow you to perform normally impossible tasks.



-----Original Message-----
From: labs@... <labs@...> On Behalf Of David Huseby
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:03 PM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #ubra timezone survey

Hi Umbrageous People,

I'd like to set up a regular meeting, like every other week or monthly to discuss the state of the project, people's plans and priorities.
Will you all reply to the list with your time zone so that we can find some candidate times for a meeting?

Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...







Re: #umbra timezone survey #umbra

Harold Heard
 

Thanks David, I am in CST (Central Standard Time) yet I am flexible.


Harold Heard, CTO & Founder
Blockqai, LLC. | (pronounced “Blok • Ki”)/Blockchain + Quantum Computing + AI

Cell: 469.629.7326
Email: harold@blockqai.com
https://linkedin.com/in/haroldheard

According to the Urban Dictionary, “Ki” is the spiritual energy within all human beings. Channeling your Ki will allow you to perform normally impossible tasks.

-----Original Message-----
From: labs@lists.hyperledger.org <labs@lists.hyperledger.org> On Behalf Of David Huseby
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:03 PM
To: labs@lists.hyperledger.org
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #ubra timezone survey

Hi Umbrageous People,

I'd like to set up a regular meeting, like every other week or monthly to discuss the state of the project, people's plans and priorities.
Will you all reply to the list with your time zone so that we can find some candidate times for a meeting?

Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org


#umbra timezone survey #umbra

David Huseby <dhuseby@...>
 

Hi Umbrageous People,

I'd like to set up a regular meeting, like every other week or monthly
to discuss the state of the project, people's plans and priorities.
Will you all reply to the list with your time zone so that we can find
some candidate times for a meeting?

Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org


Re: #umbra Introducing the Umbra Lab #umbra

Bas van Oostveen <v.oostveen@...>
 

+1 :-)

Looking forward to the work !

Bas

Op ma 5 nov. 2018 om 21:41 schreef Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>:

I declare Umbra winner of best lab name ever.  :)

--dan

On 11/5/18, 12:51 PM, "labs@... on behalf of David Huseby" <labs@... on behalf of dhuseby@...> wrote:

    Hi Umbra People,

    The project has now been approved and is officially the Hyperledger
    Umbra Lab.  We now have an official repo here:

    https://github.com/hyperledger-labs/umbra

    Martin is the primary maintainer with me as backup.  We need to move
    the existing repo over to the new repo.  I noticed that only Martin
    and Tapasweni have landed change sets.  I would like to propose that
    both of you clone/fork the new repo, add your changes again and
    resubmit pull requests against the new repo.  BUT! This time make sure
    you use the -s/--signoff option to git commit so that the
    Signed-off-by header gets added to the commits.  That is a requirement
    for all commits going into Hyperledger projects and signals that the
    developer agrees to the Hyperledger Developer Certificate of Origin.

    Also, please subscribe to the labs mailing list if you haven't already:
    https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs

    And use the hashtag #umbra at the start of the subject line for all of
    your emails to the list.

    Cheers!
    Dave
    ---
    David Huseby
    Security Maven, Hyperledger
    The Linux Foundation
    +1-206-234-2392
    dhuseby@...









Re: #umbra Introducing the Umbra Lab #umbra

Middleton, Dan
 

I declare Umbra winner of best lab name ever. :)

--dan

On 11/5/18, 12:51 PM, "labs@lists.hyperledger.org on behalf of David Huseby" <labs@lists.hyperledger.org on behalf of dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Umbra People,

The project has now been approved and is officially the Hyperledger
Umbra Lab. We now have an official repo here:

https://github.com/hyperledger-labs/umbra

Martin is the primary maintainer with me as backup. We need to move
the existing repo over to the new repo. I noticed that only Martin
and Tapasweni have landed change sets. I would like to propose that
both of you clone/fork the new repo, add your changes again and
resubmit pull requests against the new repo. BUT! This time make sure
you use the -s/--signoff option to git commit so that the
Signed-off-by header gets added to the commits. That is a requirement
for all commits going into Hyperledger projects and signals that the
developer agrees to the Hyperledger Developer Certificate of Origin.

Also, please subscribe to the labs mailing list if you haven't already:
https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs

And use the hashtag #umbra at the start of the subject line for all of
your emails to the list.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org


#umbra Introducing the Umbra Lab #umbra

David Huseby <dhuseby@...>
 

Hi Umbra People,

The project has now been approved and is officially the Hyperledger
Umbra Lab. We now have an official repo here:

https://github.com/hyperledger-labs/umbra

Martin is the primary maintainer with me as backup. We need to move
the existing repo over to the new repo. I noticed that only Martin
and Tapasweni have landed change sets. I would like to propose that
both of you clone/fork the new repo, add your changes again and
resubmit pull requests against the new repo. BUT! This time make sure
you use the -s/--signoff option to git commit so that the
Signed-off-by header gets added to the commits. That is a requirement
for all commits going into Hyperledger projects and signals that the
developer agrees to the Hyperledger Developer Certificate of Origin.

Also, please subscribe to the labs mailing list if you haven't already:
https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs

And use the hashtag #umbra at the start of the subject line for all of
your emails to the list.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@linuxfoundation.org


#SharedCrypto Default Artifact builds #SharedCrypto

mike@...
 

When making the CD pipeline. I propose we make the most common artifacts that consumers will want to use. For now, these are the ones I can think of

RPM (RedHat distros)
DEB (Debian distros)
MSI (Windows)

Does anyone have any objections to these like perhaps we can start without MSI?
--
Mike Lodder
Security Maven


#SharedCrypto crypto-lib meeting tomorrow #SharedCrypto

Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Everyone,

 

This is just a reminder email for tomorrow’s crypto-lib meeting (at the usual time).

 

Some agenda items:

 

1.       Discuss the “tiering” process for implementations and any guidelines we want to have for this going forward.  Dan Middleton sent out an email about this earlier.

2.       Naming.  Are we happy with Ursa?  We need to straighten everything out with the marketing committee no matter what we decide.

3.       Final proposal edits/suggestions.  Is there anything we still need to change in light of recent discussion?

 

Thanks a lot, and I hope to hear from many of you tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

Hart


Re: #SharedCrypto agenda ideas for Oct 31 #SharedCrypto

Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Dan,

 

Sounds great!  On your points:

 

1.       I think there will also be some grey area for tiering.  We will probably have to have maintainers collectively decide these things through votes.  We can have a standardized criteria, but I bet I could find a protocol where we would disagree on tier even given the standardized critieria.  This is a good thing to discuss though and something we will definitely have to consider more going forward.

2.       Is anyone not in favor of Ursa?  It sounded like everyone was pretty happy with it, provided we had a sufficiently scary logo.  If we’re happy with it, we should ask the marketing committee to approve.  Hopefully this shouldn’t be a long discussion tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: labs@... [mailto:labs@...] On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:20 AM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #SharedCrypto agenda ideas for Oct 31

 

Tomorrow I’d like to use the blake PR to have some discussion about standards and tiers per

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs/topic/sharedcrypto_3rd_party/27631934?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,0,27631934

 

Time permitting maybe we could also settle on a name. I don’t like to burn a lot of time on name-the-baby activities but it sounded like we were all in favor of Ursa. If so, we could formalize that.

 

--Dan


#SharedCrypto agenda ideas for Oct 31 #SharedCrypto

Middleton, Dan
 

Tomorrow I’d like to use the blake PR to have some discussion about standards and tiers per

https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs/topic/sharedcrypto_3rd_party/27631934?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,0,27631934

 

Time permitting maybe we could also settle on a name. I don’t like to burn a lot of time on name-the-baby activities but it sounded like we were all in favor of Ursa. If so, we could formalize that.

 

--Dan


Re: #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards #SharedCrypto

Bob Summerwill <bob@...>
 

Government crypto is something which came up within the EEA.

Essentially you have NIST standards and then there are Chinese and Russian equivalents which are mandatory for regulated (mainly banking) industry in those countries.


Masterchain, built by the Russian FinTech consortium, with Sberbank in a lead role, forked Geth and switched to GOST cryptography.  More that that, even, they did some architectural fixes to make all the cryptography pluggable, so you could have different "modes".   Kirill also had some ideas about how you could bridge those different modes in a manner analogous to a network gateway, so you could have International backbones connecting country-specific networks with different cryptography.  Bridge nodes.

On Fri., Oct. 26, 2018, 8:28 a.m. Middleton, Dan, <dan.middleton@...> wrote:

Yes, that criteria list was heavily biased towards standard implementations. To accommodate the other 2 tiers it should be expanded to quantify the level of review of the algorithm.


When it comes to government required implementations, I’m willing to take the position we declare that as out of scope.

On the one hand, if someone wants to contribute something that’s great. On the other hand, each thing we add costs more overhead in a variety of areas including maintaining the build and CI much less security review. The implications, both good and bad, of government implementations are probably significant but they are beyond what I have time to consider right now. I think the fail-safe is to declare them out of scope for the time being and re-evaluate in the future.

 

Thanks,

Dan

 

From: "Montgomery, Hart" <hmontgomery@...>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:01 AM
To: Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...>, "labs@..." <labs@...>
Subject: RE: #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards

 

This is a good point.  However, there are many other criteria that we might use to assess the confidence we have in standards or libraries we are using—the ones Dan lists here are only related to the practical issues around code implementation.  Other questions to consider include things like how much the algorithms being implemented have been studied and/or peer reviewed, whether the library implements a “sketchy” government-designed algorithm that has the potential for back doors, and what cryptographic assumptions the implementations are based upon.

 

I’m generally in favor of being more permissive in terms of implementations we add to the project (if someone wants to contribute them and they are useful and seemingly secure, then why not).  However, whatever build processes we use should heavily flag nonstandard or nontraditional implementations, and it should be impossible for a user to “build” crypto-lib with such algorithms unintentionally.

 

Exactly how we want to rank or rate code dependencies (including ones that we potentially write!) is a good thing for open discussion.  We can discuss our approach for something like this at our meeting next week if people like.  I doubt we’ll get universal agreement, but that’s OK—our goal should again be to just inform people using the less standard stuff and make sure they are aware rather than dictate exactly what they should use.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: labs@... [mailto:labs@...] On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 6:03 AM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards

 

I propose we establish some standards for libraries we will incorporate in crypto-lib (or Ursa or whatever we will soon call it :)  )

 

As a motivating example there’s a PR to add a blake2 library. I’ve not independently verified the performance claims but it looks like it is quite fast. In the risk department, though, the source repo indicates a single contributor and only 2-3 months of history. The latter raises risks that the code is not hardened and the former is a risk that it won’t be maintained.

 

The different tiers we establish complicate having a single list of criteria. Without being too rigid we could probably make a matrix of what degree applies to which tier. Here’s a starter list of criteria:

 

  • Maturity (how long has this code existed)
  • Maintainer count (how likely is the code to be maintained and issues responded to)
  • Community size (are there active mail lists and users that indicate it’s in active use)
  • Bug reporting (is there a way to submit security bugs)
  • What is the maintenance history (regular updates, patches, responsiveness for CVEs)?
  • Known issues (due diligence that the code is sound)
  • Are there protected releases (can we depend on signed libraries)

 

Taking `maturity` as a simple example we could set the levels for the 3 tiers as

Standard:            1 year

Semi-Trusted:   3 months

Research:            NA

 

Interested in feedback on this approach.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 


Re: #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards #SharedCrypto

Middleton, Dan
 

Yes, that criteria list was heavily biased towards standard implementations. To accommodate the other 2 tiers it should be expanded to quantify the level of review of the algorithm.


When it comes to government required implementations, I’m willing to take the position we declare that as out of scope.

On the one hand, if someone wants to contribute something that’s great. On the other hand, each thing we add costs more overhead in a variety of areas including maintaining the build and CI much less security review. The implications, both good and bad, of government implementations are probably significant but they are beyond what I have time to consider right now. I think the fail-safe is to declare them out of scope for the time being and re-evaluate in the future.

 

Thanks,

Dan

 

From: "Montgomery, Hart" <hmontgomery@...>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:01 AM
To: Dan Middleton <dan.middleton@...>, "labs@..." <labs@...>
Subject: RE: #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards

 

This is a good point.  However, there are many other criteria that we might use to assess the confidence we have in standards or libraries we are using—the ones Dan lists here are only related to the practical issues around code implementation.  Other questions to consider include things like how much the algorithms being implemented have been studied and/or peer reviewed, whether the library implements a “sketchy” government-designed algorithm that has the potential for back doors, and what cryptographic assumptions the implementations are based upon.

 

I’m generally in favor of being more permissive in terms of implementations we add to the project (if someone wants to contribute them and they are useful and seemingly secure, then why not).  However, whatever build processes we use should heavily flag nonstandard or nontraditional implementations, and it should be impossible for a user to “build” crypto-lib with such algorithms unintentionally.

 

Exactly how we want to rank or rate code dependencies (including ones that we potentially write!) is a good thing for open discussion.  We can discuss our approach for something like this at our meeting next week if people like.  I doubt we’ll get universal agreement, but that’s OK—our goal should again be to just inform people using the less standard stuff and make sure they are aware rather than dictate exactly what they should use.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: labs@... [mailto:labs@...] On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 6:03 AM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards

 

I propose we establish some standards for libraries we will incorporate in crypto-lib (or Ursa or whatever we will soon call it :)  )

 

As a motivating example there’s a PR to add a blake2 library. I’ve not independently verified the performance claims but it looks like it is quite fast. In the risk department, though, the source repo indicates a single contributor and only 2-3 months of history. The latter raises risks that the code is not hardened and the former is a risk that it won’t be maintained.

 

The different tiers we establish complicate having a single list of criteria. Without being too rigid we could probably make a matrix of what degree applies to which tier. Here’s a starter list of criteria:

 

  • Maturity (how long has this code existed)
  • Maintainer count (how likely is the code to be maintained and issues responded to)
  • Community size (are there active mail lists and users that indicate it’s in active use)
  • Bug reporting (is there a way to submit security bugs)
  • What is the maintenance history (regular updates, patches, responsiveness for CVEs)?
  • Known issues (due diligence that the code is sound)
  • Are there protected releases (can we depend on signed libraries)

 

Taking `maturity` as a simple example we could set the levels for the 3 tiers as

Standard:            1 year

Semi-Trusted:   3 months

Research:            NA

 

Interested in feedback on this approach.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 


Re: #SharedCrypto crypto-lib proposal update #SharedCrypto

Middleton, Dan
 

I’m fine with the updated maintainers concept.

We can enforce n maintainer reviews with github. We already do that in sawtooth. I’m still planning to get the contributor rules writeup in as a PR before our next meeting.

 

--Dan

 

From: <labs@...> on behalf of Mark Wagner <mwagner114@...>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 8:44 PM
To: Hart Montgomery <hmontgomery@...>
Cc: "labs@..." <labs@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Labs] #SharedCrypto crypto-lib proposal update

 

Sounds good to me

 

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 21:28 hmontgomery@... <hmontgomery@...> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

I just wanted to give a brief update.  At the TSC meeting today, we discussed the crypto-lib proposal for a little bit and got some good feedback.

 

The main suggestion (from Chris Ferris) was that it would be simpler (and better for expanding the project in the future) if, instead of having “stewards” and maintainers, we just classified everyone as maintainers and separated them into lists.  This would mean we have a list of “theoretical maintainers” which would currently be our stewards, and “base signature/Zmix maintainers” which would be our current maintainers.  This would simplify our review process, since we could just require people on the “theoretical maintainer” list to sign off on changes that are algorithmic in nature, and this could be done natively in, say, Gerrit.  It would also mean our project structure would be much more like established projects, which is almost certainly a good thing.

 

I don’t think this is a radical change (or even much of a change) from what we had in mind and shouldn’t change the way things are currently working.  The semantics are just a little bit different, and it will help in the future if we want to further define roles (i.e. security code review expert, or post-quantum cryptography expert) to get appropriate reviews.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on or objections to this change?  If not, then I’ll modify the project proposal to reflect this.

 

Thanks,

Hart


Re: #SharedCrypto crypto-lib proposal update #SharedCrypto

Mark Wagner
 

Sounds good to me


On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 21:28 hmontgomery@... <hmontgomery@...> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

I just wanted to give a brief update.  At the TSC meeting today, we discussed the crypto-lib proposal for a little bit and got some good feedback.

 

The main suggestion (from Chris Ferris) was that it would be simpler (and better for expanding the project in the future) if, instead of having “stewards” and maintainers, we just classified everyone as maintainers and separated them into lists.  This would mean we have a list of “theoretical maintainers” which would currently be our stewards, and “base signature/Zmix maintainers” which would be our current maintainers.  This would simplify our review process, since we could just require people on the “theoretical maintainer” list to sign off on changes that are algorithmic in nature, and this could be done natively in, say, Gerrit.  It would also mean our project structure would be much more like established projects, which is almost certainly a good thing.

 

I don’t think this is a radical change (or even much of a change) from what we had in mind and shouldn’t change the way things are currently working.  The semantics are just a little bit different, and it will help in the future if we want to further define roles (i.e. security code review expert, or post-quantum cryptography expert) to get appropriate reviews.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on or objections to this change?  If not, then I’ll modify the project proposal to reflect this.

 

Thanks,

Hart


#SharedCrypto crypto-lib proposal update #SharedCrypto

Hart Montgomery
 

Hi Everyone,

 

I just wanted to give a brief update.  At the TSC meeting today, we discussed the crypto-lib proposal for a little bit and got some good feedback.

 

The main suggestion (from Chris Ferris) was that it would be simpler (and better for expanding the project in the future) if, instead of having “stewards” and maintainers, we just classified everyone as maintainers and separated them into lists.  This would mean we have a list of “theoretical maintainers” which would currently be our stewards, and “base signature/Zmix maintainers” which would be our current maintainers.  This would simplify our review process, since we could just require people on the “theoretical maintainer” list to sign off on changes that are algorithmic in nature, and this could be done natively in, say, Gerrit.  It would also mean our project structure would be much more like established projects, which is almost certainly a good thing.

 

I don’t think this is a radical change (or even much of a change) from what we had in mind and shouldn’t change the way things are currently working.  The semantics are just a little bit different, and it will help in the future if we want to further define roles (i.e. security code review expert, or post-quantum cryptography expert) to get appropriate reviews.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on or objections to this change?  If not, then I’ll modify the project proposal to reflect this.

 

Thanks,

Hart


Re: #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards #SharedCrypto

Hart Montgomery
 

This is a good point.  However, there are many other criteria that we might use to assess the confidence we have in standards or libraries we are using—the ones Dan lists here are only related to the practical issues around code implementation.  Other questions to consider include things like how much the algorithms being implemented have been studied and/or peer reviewed, whether the library implements a “sketchy” government-designed algorithm that has the potential for back doors, and what cryptographic assumptions the implementations are based upon.

 

I’m generally in favor of being more permissive in terms of implementations we add to the project (if someone wants to contribute them and they are useful and seemingly secure, then why not).  However, whatever build processes we use should heavily flag nonstandard or nontraditional implementations, and it should be impossible for a user to “build” crypto-lib with such algorithms unintentionally.

 

Exactly how we want to rank or rate code dependencies (including ones that we potentially write!) is a good thing for open discussion.  We can discuss our approach for something like this at our meeting next week if people like.  I doubt we’ll get universal agreement, but that’s OK—our goal should again be to just inform people using the less standard stuff and make sure they are aware rather than dictate exactly what they should use.

 

Thanks,

Hart

 

From: labs@... [mailto:labs@...] On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 6:03 AM
To: labs@...
Subject: [Hyperledger Labs] #SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards

 

I propose we establish some standards for libraries we will incorporate in crypto-lib (or Ursa or whatever we will soon call it :)  )

 

As a motivating example there’s a PR to add a blake2 library. I’ve not independently verified the performance claims but it looks like it is quite fast. In the risk department, though, the source repo indicates a single contributor and only 2-3 months of history. The latter raises risks that the code is not hardened and the former is a risk that it won’t be maintained.

 

The different tiers we establish complicate having a single list of criteria. Without being too rigid we could probably make a matrix of what degree applies to which tier. Here’s a starter list of criteria:

 

  • Maturity (how long has this code existed)
  • Maintainer count (how likely is the code to be maintained and issues responded to)
  • Community size (are there active mail lists and users that indicate it’s in active use)
  • Bug reporting (is there a way to submit security bugs)
  • What is the maintenance history (regular updates, patches, responsiveness for CVEs)?
  • Known issues (due diligence that the code is sound)
  • Are there protected releases (can we depend on signed libraries)

 

Taking `maturity` as a simple example we could set the levels for the 3 tiers as

Standard:            1 year

Semi-Trusted:   3 months

Research:            NA

 

Interested in feedback on this approach.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 


#SharedCrypto 3rd party library standards #SharedCrypto

Middleton, Dan
 

I propose we establish some standards for libraries we will incorporate in crypto-lib (or Ursa or whatever we will soon call it :)  )

 

As a motivating example there’s a PR to add a blake2 library. I’ve not independently verified the performance claims but it looks like it is quite fast. In the risk department, though, the source repo indicates a single contributor and only 2-3 months of history. The latter raises risks that the code is not hardened and the former is a risk that it won’t be maintained.

 

The different tiers we establish complicate having a single list of criteria. Without being too rigid we could probably make a matrix of what degree applies to which tier. Here’s a starter list of criteria:

 

  • Maturity (how long has this code existed)
  • Maintainer count (how likely is the code to be maintained and issues responded to)
  • Community size (are there active mail lists and users that indicate it’s in active use)
  • Bug reporting (is there a way to submit security bugs)
  • What is the maintenance history (regular updates, patches, responsiveness for CVEs)?
  • Known issues (due diligence that the code is sound)
  • Are there protected releases (can we depend on signed libraries)

 

Taking `maturity` as a simple example we could set the levels for the 3 tiers as

Standard:            1 year

Semi-Trusted:   3 months

Research:            NA

 

Interested in feedback on this approach.

 

Regards,

Dan

 

 

81 - 100 of 129